... because "I haven't decided yet" is a much more common response on the door step than I've observed in previous elections.
How sure you are that that isn't just a euphemism for 'go away' (I'd have put something else if this had been Hell rather than Purgatory). Not a very good one, I'd admit as it could easily prompt being canvassed. Back in the days when I was working I used to find 'I'm politically restricted' was much more effective.
@stonespring I find it quite disturbing that being registered as a regular voter for a party - or, for that matter being unaligned - is regarded in the U.S.A. as a matter of public record accessible to any nosey neighbour, marketer or politician person. That looks detrimental to any concept of the ballot being secret.
The euphemisms for "go away" are usually "I'm busy" or simply not coming to the door at all. Or, "I'll be voting for [other party]".
"I haven't decided yet" invites a conversation on what issues are important and how the party activist on your door step would describe their policy on those issues. A few weeks ahead of election, normally "I haven't decided" is an unusual response, but this year it's about 20-30% of those who don't just politely tell us to go away.
We have just received a flyer from the local Reform candidate (despite having the EU flag in our front window). Te are enjoined to 'Vote REFORM to save BRITIAN' (sic).
I think that's bad. I don't want political parties knowing whether I voted or not.
It’s information that is available to anyone that wants it, not just political parties. When your name & polling number is ticked off the list at the polling station, that is recorded
If you have been on the polling agency’s roll for a while (I’ve been on YouGov for years) they will have a record of all your previous voting responses. We are regularly asked about what we voted for last time and they do track people changing their mind about previous voting.
But do the local parties know when they send volunteers to distribute literature and knock on doors who has voted recently and who hasn’t?
Yes, that information is freely available. They don’t know who they voted for though
Labour probably knows who is a member of the Labour Party. Does it know who members of the Conservative Party are and members of other parties? In the US, party registration doesn’t involve having to pay anything, so registered Republicans and Democrats are much higher as a percent of the population than Labour or Tory Party members, but party registration data is also something that any group having people knock on doors or make phone calls knows when they come up with lists of people to reach out to.
In 2020, when Democrats were feeling cocky, they had volunteers like me try calling registered Republicans. That was fun. 😳
If you have been on the polling agency’s roll for a while (I’ve been on YouGov for years) they will have a record of all your previous voting responses. We are regularly asked about what we voted for last time and they do track people changing their mind about previous voting.
But do the local parties know when they send volunteers to distribute literature and knock on doors who has voted recently and who hasn’t?
Yes, that information is freely available. They don’t know who they voted for though
Labour probably knows who is a member of the Labour Party. Does it know who members of the Conservative Party are and members of other parties?
I don't believe one party would know who the members of other parties were, and in the case of the Labour Party their record keeping has been bad enough that they encountered legal problems because of it in the recent past.
Some commentators seem to think that Farage's statements on Ukraine and Putin will damage his campaign. I'd like to think so but unfortunately I think it's more likely that his supporters will adjust their views of Russia accordingly (rather like Trump's voters).
Some commentators seem to think that Farage's statements on Ukraine and Putin will damage his campaign. I'd like to think so but unfortunately I think it's more likely that his supporters will adjust their views of Russia accordingly (rather like Trump's voters).
I think you are ignoring the fact that there's a constituency on the right for a kind of Little Englander Isolationism (or Powellism if you prefer). There are plenty of people I've met that had very right wing views on the military but who were against every foreign intervention post the Falklands on this basis.
But it's more than "we shouldn't intervene": it's more like "Putin has a legitimate grievance and is a strong leader with the right sort of ideas, even if he might have overstepped the mark a smidgen".
If it’s anything line Trumpism and the Jacksonian isolationism that predates it here, it’s also like “we shouldn’t have alliances or other entanglements with other countries, and we shouldn’t get involved in wars that have nothing to do with us, but we have every right to lash out at anyone who pisses us off” - so it can be a quite aggressive form of isolationism.
Having actually lived in the solidly-Conservative constituency of North Ipswich and Central Suffolk for 11 years, I am slightly amused by Kevin Craig betting on a Labour defeat there. Apart from anything else, his potential winnings would be paltry.
Having actually lived in the solidly-Conservative constituency of North Ipswich and Central Suffolk for 11 years, I am slightly amused by Kevin Craig betting on a Labour defeat there. Apart from anything else, his potential winnings would be paltry.
A positive note about the UK media. Notwithstanding the criticisms I made of the BBC above, they'll still the home of high quality journalism.
Recently they've done some in depth investigation work of people smuggling across the channel.
A few weeks ago, they published the story of how they tracked down a gang leader. I see from this report that their work has lead to the Scorpion being arrested.
On The Today Program today they reported on the crew who were responsible for the recent crossing where a 7 year old died. The online version of the story is here.
This is fantastic journalism. In this case from the Beeb, which is generally a cut above the rest. The Guardian still does proper investigative reporting as does Private Eye. The latter being the prime mover in the Post Office scandal. Historically, The Telegraph has also been good on this. I am happy to be corrected but I don't think they've had any major coups since the expenses scandal and they used potentially illegal means* to get confidential information for that one...
Anyway, in a landscape that could be discouraging, these are genuine high points.
AFZ
P.s. Not for this thread but the politics here is also notable. Labour has set out a specific policy for a serious task-force and international cooperation. The success of these investigations supports the notion that Labour is on to something here. It's no substitute for setting up safe and legal routes but it is part of the answer.
*The initial story was built on stolen confidential data. This is a crime. The police declined to prosecute on the grounds that a public interest defence may have been possible.
I draw your attention to the P.S. I refer, of course to the announcement made in Dover, just before the election was called.
I want to expand here on my thoughts.
This is a sound policy.
It is not what I am longing to hear, which is a full-throated moral argument for why we must welcome refugees.
But I'm voting Labour anyway. If Labour shouts about this policy, why quietly doing the right thing on access to safe routes, I'll be content in the short term. In the long term, someone does need to make the moral case. We've been waiting decades for it and the far right is ever more emboldened.
Labour have made the judgment that they can't do that and win. Sadly, I think they're correct. Which is why I am prepared to bite my tongue this side of the election. Ruling out flights to Rwanda is good. Most of the time, they've done it on pragmatic grounds but I have heard Starmer and Cooper (and also Wes Streeting) describe it as immoral too. I am watching, I will criticise a Labour Government (God willing) if they fail on this but they are going to be such an improvement on where we are now.
It is not what I am longing to hear, which is a full-throated moral argument for why we must welcome refugees.
Labour have made the judgment that they can't do that and win.
Instead they've seem to have been going with the message of "deporting Bangladeshis" - which is an .. interesting target.
Sadly, I think they're correct. Which is why I am prepared to bite my tongue this side of the election.
Okay - but it begs the question of when they'll feel it 'safe' to do so, given that it isn't "safe" when they are 20% ahead in the polls. I have no doubt that you are sincere in implying that you'd be more vocal after the election, but I suspect this is true of very few of those who say that the most important thing is to get the tories out, and that they can pressure Labour to move after the election (if only because they'd have given up their most important source of leverage).
It is not what I am longing to hear, which is a full-throated moral argument for why we must welcome refugees.
Labour have made the judgment that they can't do that and win.
Instead they've seem to have been going with the message of "deporting Bangladeshis" - which is an .. interesting target.
Sadly, I think they're correct. Which is why I am prepared to bite my tongue this side of the election.
Okay - but it begs the question of when they'll feel it 'safe' to do so, given that it isn't "safe" when they are 20% ahead in the polls. I have no doubt that you are sincere in implying that you'd be more vocal after the election, but I suspect this is true of very few of those who say that the most important thing is to get the tories out, and that they can pressure Labour to move after the election (if only because they'd have given up their most important source of leverage).
That's a fair point. I am basing my optimism not on the rhetoric but on the published details of policies and the direction of travel.
Will it be good enough? The proof of the pudding and all that...
But realistically, what's the alternative as a voter? Vote Conservative or Reform? Obviously not. Vote Green or LibDem? Maybe. But again the distortions of FPTP make this problematic (or not, depending on constituency).
Moreover, I am partly pushing back on the "They're all the same" argument. They are not. That's not the same as saying Labour are good enough. I don't think they are. But they are still significantly better than the alternative.
Elections are always a choice between the candidates that are standing not the ones we wish were.
It is not what I am longing to hear, which is a full-throated moral argument for why we must welcome refugees.
Labour have made the judgment that they can't do that and win.
Instead they've seem to have been going with the message of "deporting Bangladeshis" - which is an .. interesting target.
Sadly, I think they're correct. Which is why I am prepared to bite my tongue this side of the election.
Okay - but it begs the question of when they'll feel it 'safe' to do so, given that it isn't "safe" when they are 20% ahead in the polls. I have no doubt that you are sincere in implying that you'd be more vocal after the election, but I suspect this is true of very few of those who say that the most important thing is to get the tories out, and that they can pressure Labour to move after the election (if only because they'd have given up their most important source of leverage).
That's a fair point. I am basing my optimism not on the rhetoric but on the published details of policies and the direction of travel.
My view is that racism has to be confronted rather than pandered to; tough talk about 'deportations' or the accusation that 'Rishi Sunak is the most liberal Prime Minister when it comes to immigration' (from Starmer's faction "Labour to Win") keeps the "debate" alive where Farage is strongest, and convinces no one - anyone who is wants that rhetoric will go for the full strength variety from Reform rather than being convinced by Labour.
They are all dishonest on the subject of immigration and none of the parties standing even mention the biggest problem - that the UK Visa and Citizenship Application Service (UKVCAS) is broken. As and until someone is prepared to give the country a system that works there isn't a hope of getting a grip on immigration, both legal and illegal.
They are all dishonest on the subject of immigration and none of the parties standing even mention the biggest problem - that the UK Visa and Citizenship Application Service (UKVCAS) is broken. As and until someone is prepared to give the country a system that works there isn't a hope of getting a grip on immigration, both legal and illegal.
That's half true.
Cooper has said many times in Parliament that the visa system is broken.
What she hasn't said is anything about how she wants to fix it that I found appealing and encouraging.
She talks tough all the time.
I am not a fan of this approach.
Again, with the records of Cleverly, Braveman, Patel, Rudd and May, the bar of "well that's a helluva lot better than the Tories" is extremely low.
I am confident she'll pass that bar. That's not the same as achieving a moral or even effective policy.
We have justt received another flyer from Reform - and one from the Rejoin Party, which might conceivably lure some voters away from the Liberal Democrats, who are more likely than Labour to unseat the Tories in this part of the Home Counties.
A flyer from Reform this morning, along with one from something called the Heritage Party, which I've never heard of.
This constituency has been old-school Labour in the past, but tory for some years now (with the previous tory MP defecting mid-term to what was then UKIP). It is, therefore, not a particularly safe tory seat, and, with our local unitary authority now firmly under Labour control, may well turn red again...
Well, I know many people hope for at least a comfortable Labour majority, but it'll be interesting to see who forms His Majesty's loyal Opposition. If it does turn out to be the LibDems (or perhaps LibDems + Greens ), at least PMQs might be just a bit more civilised, and with a different (and more grown-up) dynamic.
Actually, that's something to look forward to - a Government, and maybe an Opposition, too - composed of grown-ups, and not ridiculous bad-tempered toddlers.
Conservatives. Their flyer focusses on the candidate's local credentials and why the SNP are bad. It includes photos of Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, but not of any Tory other than the candidate. It doesn't contain a single positive statement about the Tories, nor any national Tory policy other than "beating the SNP." Tory pledge - If you want the A96 improved, vote Tory.
Labour. It's clearly marked "Scottish Labour", it has photos of Starmer, Anas Sarwar and the local candidate, and it has a mixture of local and national policies. There's a brief comment of why Labour would be better than the SNP, but it's mercifully free of negatives. Labour pledge - If you want the A96 improved, vote Labour.
Lib Dem. Lots of photos of the candidate out and about in the constituency. Very local focus. Some negative campaigning against the SNP and Tories. Lib Dem pledge - if you want the A96 improved, vote Lib Dem.
SNP. Photos of the candidate and John Swinney. Mixture of local and national policies. A couple of swipes against the other parties, but mostly positive. SNP pledge - if you want the A96 improved, vote SNP.
Reform. The flyer has a photo of Nigel Farage and Richard Tice, and a box in which the name of the local candidate is printed. No photo of the candidate, no local policies. Not even a promise to improve the A96.
Verdict. Labour have the best flyer. It's positive and clear. LibDems and SNP come equal second. The Tory flyer seems to be trying to pretend that it's not a Tory flyer. Reform is just irrelevant. How can the expect anyone to take a flyer seriously if it doesn't mention the A96???
The SNP have the best "improve the A96" pledge: the SNP having completed the Aberdeen bypass, got rid of the Inveramsay bridge bottleneck and partially dualled the Aberdeen / Inverness rail link, the A96 is next on the list!
I doubt if Reform even know where Scotland is, let alone the A96!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
As I've mentioned before, we live in an area that would normally be a safe Tory seat (20% + swing needed). Current polling suggests it's very competitive.
That might explain the initial lack of leaflets that has since picked up. So far a couple from the Tories, one from LibDems, one from Labour and one from Reform.
Today, I did the school pick-up and got to meet the Labour candidate. In our village, that's quite a statement in itself.
It was nice to be able to tell her that I've already voted for her. I also told to her to make sure they fix the NHS...
Having actually lived in the solidly-Conservative constituency of North Ipswich and Central Suffolk for 11 years, I am slightly amused by Kevin Craig betting on a Labour defeat there. Apart from anything else, his potential winnings would be paltry.
I doubt if Reform even know where Scotland is, let alone the A96!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
Allegedly Farage is refusing to go to Scotland to campaign for his own safety. Hard not to chalk that up as a win.
I doubt if Reform even know where Scotland is, let alone the A96!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
Allegedly Farage is refusing to go to Scotland to campaign for his own safety. Hard not to chalk that up as a win.
Targeting seats is obviously a thing; but making a candidate leave the constituency and cutting off local campaigners (many of whom won't be able/willing to travel far) from the canvassing systems is generally unheard of.
I doubt if Reform even know where Scotland is, let alone the A96!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
Allegedly Farage is refusing to go to Scotland to campaign for his own safety. Hard not to chalk that up as a win.
Targeting seats is obviously a thing; but making a candidate leave the constituency and cutting off local campaigners (many of whom won't be able/willing to travel far) from the canvassing systems is generally unheard of.
Yes, I wondered if perhaps that's what Labour was up to - hoping that Farage will win Clacton, so as to be able to clip his wings once he's in Parliament (and has to do some actual work...).
Not a particularly good idea, though, and really tough on the local candidate and supporters.
I doubt if Reform even know where Scotland is, let alone the A96!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
Allegedly Farage is refusing to go to Scotland to campaign for his own safety. Hard not to chalk that up as a win.
Targeting seats is obviously a thing; but making a candidate leave the constituency and cutting off local campaigners (many of whom won't be able/willing to travel far) from the canvassing systems is generally unheard of.
Yes, I wondered if perhaps that's what Labour was up to - hoping that Farage will win Clacton, so as to be able to clip his wings once he's in Parliament (and has to do some actual work...).
If that's what they are up to, it's a stupid idea which has never worked. If Farage is just a random MP he gains a bully pulpit but has literally no formal responsibilities.
I doubt if Reform even know where Scotland is, let alone the A96!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
Allegedly Farage is refusing to go to Scotland to campaign for his own safety. Hard not to chalk that up as a win.
Targeting seats is obviously a thing; but making a candidate leave the constituency and cutting off local campaigners (many of whom won't be able/willing to travel far) from the canvassing systems is generally unheard of.
Yes, I wondered if perhaps that's what Labour was up to - hoping that Farage will win Clacton, so as to be able to clip his wings once he's in Parliament (and has to do some actual work...).
If that's what they are up to, it's a stupid idea which has never worked. If Farage is just a random MP he gains a bully pulpit but has literally no formal responsibilities.
It's difficult to know. I've seen reports of Labour pulling out and also of that being officially denied. Who knows?
There is some polling that says Farage is going to get over 50% and win anyway. There is other data that puts Reform and Conservatives and Labour all on ~30%.
There is no way that Labour or the Conservatives can promote tactical voting for the other - that would be an anathema for both and very dangerous for Labour for the national campaign which is mostly built on how bad the Tories are. It would also be a big propaganda coup for Farage...
However, the quietly pull out because of focusing elsewhere and hoping to put the Tories over the top on the QT.... that's not necessarily a bad strategy.
As I said, conflicting reports, so who knows at this point?
I suppose (as alienfromzog suggests) it's just possible that Labour are pulling their candidate out in order to benefit the Conservatives in Clacton so that Farage will lose. Nevertheless it seems silly. They should back their own candidate. It would show self-belief - they have fair grounds to think they can win anywhere.
It's difficult to know. I've seen reports of Labour pulling out and also of that being officially denied. Who knows?
"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied". And that counts double with the current Labour leadership. Johnson was a bullshitter, but the Labour right are strategic liars and control freaks to boot.
It's difficult to know. I've seen reports of Labour pulling out and also of that being officially denied. Who knows?
Where has it been officially denied? Specifically these are the claims of the article linked above:
"Owusu-Nepaul has since been “seconded” to the West Midlands, while the local campaign in Clacton said that it had been banned from printing leaflets, blocked from using campaigning software and had access to the campaign’s social media overridden, with posts deleted on X."
"In a letter to Labour’s general secretary, David Evans, seen by the Guardian, Martin Suker, Owusu-Nepaul’s election agent said: “Reform UK stands for everything we the Labour party stand against … and I’m struggling to come to terms that it appears the party doesn’t even want to be seen to be putting up a fight.
“Jovan was told [by an official] to never come back to Clacton, and yesterday, was instructed to move to the West Midlands region."
I'm very, very confused about this one. Is it a non-story?
It is TOTALLY normal for parties to pull resources away from seats they don't think they can win in the latter stages of a campaign. If Farage wasn't standing, this wouldn't have been picked up at all...
Or is Labour running away from Farage or trying to help the Tories beat him? I have certainly seen polling that suggests Labour could win...
I'm very, very confused about this one. Is it a non-story?
It is TOTALLY normal for parties to pull resources away from seats they don't think they can win in the latter stages of a campaign.
The details revealed in the article are far more than just the targeting of resources (as above), and apart from anything else they haven't re-deployed the candidate locally but sent him halfway across the country (after he started gaining traction)
Given the swing and split of the vote the seat was never more winnable. Alternatively take the hit, say that the tendency represented by Farage needs to be defeated and run a unity campaign in that seat (but that would mean avoiding racist dog whistles).
Not a particularly good idea, though, and really tough on the local candidate and supporters.
The “local” candidate is a relatively young (and presumably up-and-coming) member of Labour’s equalities team, no doubt sent to Clacton to get a taste of candidacy before being given a more winnable seat somewhere else in the country next time. I doubt he minds one way or the other.
Comments
@stonespring I find it quite disturbing that being registered as a regular voter for a party - or, for that matter being unaligned - is regarded in the U.S.A. as a matter of public record accessible to any nosey neighbour, marketer or politician person. That looks detrimental to any concept of the ballot being secret.
"I haven't decided yet" invites a conversation on what issues are important and how the party activist on your door step would describe their policy on those issues. A few weeks ahead of election, normally "I haven't decided" is an unusual response, but this year it's about 20-30% of those who don't just politely tell us to go away.
An advert from the Cooperative Party came up in my Facebook feed.
It links to here: https://party.coop/community?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=paid_social&utm_campaign=SignUp24&utm_content=SU_fba_as2_ad4
It’s information that is available to anyone that wants it, not just political parties. When your name & polling number is ticked off the list at the polling station, that is recorded
I think it was the Hell thread where we were discussing the Co-Op Party
Labour probably knows who is a member of the Labour Party. Does it know who members of the Conservative Party are and members of other parties? In the US, party registration doesn’t involve having to pay anything, so registered Republicans and Democrats are much higher as a percent of the population than Labour or Tory Party members, but party registration data is also something that any group having people knock on doors or make phone calls knows when they come up with lists of people to reach out to.
In 2020, when Democrats were feeling cocky, they had volunteers like me try calling registered Republicans. That was fun. 😳
I don't believe one party would know who the members of other parties were, and in the case of the Labour Party their record keeping has been bad enough that they encountered legal problems because of it in the recent past.
I think you are ignoring the fact that there's a constituency on the right for a kind of Little Englander Isolationism (or Powellism if you prefer). There are plenty of people I've met that had very right wing views on the military but who were against every foreign intervention post the Falklands on this basis.
Yes, I think it's reasonably consistent[*] and one doesn't have to subscribe to the theory that 'their brains were hacked by Putin' to explain it.
[*] On its own - they usually also have the idea that Britain should have more influence in the world.
Are we allowed to ask about April ?
In May various people could have been in meetings talking to the PM about it.
In the greater scheme of things it is a relatively minor matter but it does not inspire confidence in clean government and clean politics.
This point has been made many times in various news/opinion pieces. The sheer stupidity is worse, maybe, than the cupidity.
Maybe he meant it as a sort of joke?
I draw your attention to the P.S. I refer, of course to the announcement made in Dover, just before the election was called.
I want to expand here on my thoughts.
This is a sound policy.
It is not what I am longing to hear, which is a full-throated moral argument for why we must welcome refugees.
But I'm voting Labour anyway. If Labour shouts about this policy, why quietly doing the right thing on access to safe routes, I'll be content in the short term. In the long term, someone does need to make the moral case. We've been waiting decades for it and the far right is ever more emboldened.
Labour have made the judgment that they can't do that and win. Sadly, I think they're correct. Which is why I am prepared to bite my tongue this side of the election. Ruling out flights to Rwanda is good. Most of the time, they've done it on pragmatic grounds but I have heard Starmer and Cooper (and also Wes Streeting) describe it as immoral too. I am watching, I will criticise a Labour Government (God willing) if they fail on this but they are going to be such an improvement on where we are now.
AFZ
Instead they've seem to have been going with the message of "deporting Bangladeshis" - which is an .. interesting target.
Okay - but it begs the question of when they'll feel it 'safe' to do so, given that it isn't "safe" when they are 20% ahead in the polls. I have no doubt that you are sincere in implying that you'd be more vocal after the election, but I suspect this is true of very few of those who say that the most important thing is to get the tories out, and that they can pressure Labour to move after the election (if only because they'd have given up their most important source of leverage).
That's a fair point. I am basing my optimism not on the rhetoric but on the published details of policies and the direction of travel.
Will it be good enough? The proof of the pudding and all that...
But realistically, what's the alternative as a voter? Vote Conservative or Reform? Obviously not. Vote Green or LibDem? Maybe. But again the distortions of FPTP make this problematic (or not, depending on constituency).
Moreover, I am partly pushing back on the "They're all the same" argument. They are not. That's not the same as saying Labour are good enough. I don't think they are. But they are still significantly better than the alternative.
Elections are always a choice between the candidates that are standing not the ones we wish were.
AFZ
My view is that racism has to be confronted rather than pandered to; tough talk about 'deportations' or the accusation that 'Rishi Sunak is the most liberal Prime Minister when it comes to immigration' (from Starmer's faction "Labour to Win") keeps the "debate" alive where Farage is strongest, and convinces no one - anyone who is wants that rhetoric will go for the full strength variety from Reform rather than being convinced by Labour.
That's half true.
Cooper has said many times in Parliament that the visa system is broken.
What she hasn't said is anything about how she wants to fix it that I found appealing and encouraging.
She talks tough all the time.
I am not a fan of this approach.
Again, with the records of Cleverly, Braveman, Patel, Rudd and May, the bar of "well that's a helluva lot better than the Tories" is extremely low.
I am confident she'll pass that bar. That's not the same as achieving a moral or even effective policy.
AFZ
This constituency has been old-school Labour in the past, but tory for some years now (with the previous tory MP defecting mid-term to what was then UKIP). It is, therefore, not a particularly safe tory seat, and, with our local unitary authority now firmly under Labour control, may well turn red again...
Well, I know many people hope for at least a comfortable Labour majority, but it'll be interesting to see who forms His Majesty's loyal Opposition. If it does turn out to be the LibDems (or perhaps LibDems + Greens
Actually, that's something to look forward to - a Government, and maybe an Opposition, too - composed of grown-ups, and not ridiculous bad-tempered toddlers.
Conservatives. Their flyer focusses on the candidate's local credentials and why the SNP are bad. It includes photos of Nicola Sturgeon, Humza Yousaf and John Swinney, but not of any Tory other than the candidate. It doesn't contain a single positive statement about the Tories, nor any national Tory policy other than "beating the SNP." Tory pledge - If you want the A96 improved, vote Tory.
Labour. It's clearly marked "Scottish Labour", it has photos of Starmer, Anas Sarwar and the local candidate, and it has a mixture of local and national policies. There's a brief comment of why Labour would be better than the SNP, but it's mercifully free of negatives. Labour pledge - If you want the A96 improved, vote Labour.
Lib Dem. Lots of photos of the candidate out and about in the constituency. Very local focus. Some negative campaigning against the SNP and Tories. Lib Dem pledge - if you want the A96 improved, vote Lib Dem.
SNP. Photos of the candidate and John Swinney. Mixture of local and national policies. A couple of swipes against the other parties, but mostly positive. SNP pledge - if you want the A96 improved, vote SNP.
Reform. The flyer has a photo of Nigel Farage and Richard Tice, and a box in which the name of the local candidate is printed. No photo of the candidate, no local policies. Not even a promise to improve the A96.
Verdict. Labour have the best flyer. It's positive and clear. LibDems and SNP come equal second. The Tory flyer seems to be trying to pretend that it's not a Tory flyer. Reform is just irrelevant. How can the expect anyone to take a flyer seriously if it doesn't mention the A96???
The SNP have the best "improve the A96" pledge: the SNP having completed the Aberdeen bypass, got rid of the Inveramsay bridge bottleneck and partially dualled the Aberdeen / Inverness rail link, the A96 is next on the list!
I wonder if Reform are sending out a generic flyer - as they have no policies, especially local, all they can do is to remind us of the existence of Farage and Tice.
That might explain the initial lack of leaflets that has since picked up. So far a couple from the Tories, one from LibDems, one from Labour and one from Reform.
Today, I did the school pick-up and got to meet the Labour candidate. In our village, that's quite a statement in itself.
It was nice to be able to tell her that I've already voted for her. I also told to her to make sure they fix the NHS...
AFZ
I did wonder that.
Allegedly Farage is refusing to go to Scotland to campaign for his own safety. Hard not to chalk that up as a win.
A wee dram or two of a single malt whisky would be wasted on him, I fear.
OTOH Labour are doing 'play stupid games win stupid prizes' in Clacton, seemingly out of a calculation that a win for Farage and the short term embarrassment for the Tories outweighs the harm of giving him a platform: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/26/labour-not-putting-up-a-fight-against-farage-in-clacton
Targeting seats is obviously a thing; but making a candidate leave the constituency and cutting off local campaigners (many of whom won't be able/willing to travel far) from the canvassing systems is generally unheard of.
Yes, I wondered if perhaps that's what Labour was up to - hoping that Farage will win Clacton, so as to be able to clip his wings once he's in Parliament (and has to do some actual work...).
Not a particularly good idea, though, and really tough on the local candidate and supporters.
If that's what they are up to, it's a stupid idea which has never worked. If Farage is just a random MP he gains a bully pulpit but has literally no formal responsibilities.
Quite so. Hopefully, Farage will lose...
There is some polling that says Farage is going to get over 50% and win anyway. There is other data that puts Reform and Conservatives and Labour all on ~30%.
There is no way that Labour or the Conservatives can promote tactical voting for the other - that would be an anathema for both and very dangerous for Labour for the national campaign which is mostly built on how bad the Tories are. It would also be a big propaganda coup for Farage...
However, the quietly pull out because of focusing elsewhere and hoping to put the Tories over the top on the QT.... that's not necessarily a bad strategy.
As I said, conflicting reports, so who knows at this point?
AFZ
"Never believe anything until it's been officially denied". And that counts double with the current Labour leadership. Johnson was a bullshitter, but the Labour right are strategic liars and control freaks to boot.
Where has it been officially denied? Specifically these are the claims of the article linked above:
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1806293520317124926?t=R-rEZwEFXFRCUG7uqShWDA&s=19
Except he doesn't deny any of the above, and as Elgot herself goes on to say, it appears nothing has changed since:
https://x.com/jessicaelgot/status/1806302494412136530
This is of a piece with him speaking out of both sides of his mouth regarding the Bangladeshi community.
I'm very, very confused about this one. Is it a non-story?
It is TOTALLY normal for parties to pull resources away from seats they don't think they can win in the latter stages of a campaign. If Farage wasn't standing, this wouldn't have been picked up at all...
Or is Labour running away from Farage or trying to help the Tories beat him? I have certainly seen polling that suggests Labour could win...
I don't bloody know
AFZ
The details revealed in the article are far more than just the targeting of resources (as above), and apart from anything else they haven't re-deployed the candidate locally but sent him halfway across the country (after he started gaining traction)
Given the swing and split of the vote the seat was never more winnable. Alternatively take the hit, say that the tendency represented by Farage needs to be defeated and run a unity campaign in that seat (but that would mean avoiding racist dog whistles).
The “local” candidate is a relatively young (and presumably up-and-coming) member of Labour’s equalities team, no doubt sent to Clacton to get a taste of candidacy before being given a more winnable seat somewhere else in the country next time. I doubt he minds one way or the other.